Adult Cochlear Implant Patient Performance with Evolving Electrode Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 1998, clinical trials were initiated to evaluate the CLARION Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant (Advanced Bionics Corp., Sylmar, CA, U.S.A.), a precurved electrode with an electrode positioning system (EPS) in adults with severe to profound hearing impairments. In 1999, clinical trials were initiated to assess the CLARION HiFocus electrode with EPS in a similar group of adults. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the preoperative and 1-, 3-, and 6-month postoperative speech perception scores obtained by the first 56 patients implanted with the precurved electrode with EPS and the first 56 patients implanted with the HiFocus electrode with EPS. Speech strategy preferences were additionally noted and compared at each test interval for each group. STUDY DESIGN: All subjects participated in preoperative testing with hearing aids and postoperative (1, 3 and 6 months) testing with either the precurved electrode with EPS or the HiFocus electrode with EPS. Demographic characteristics and preoperative and postoperative speech perception results were compared within and between the 2 groups. SETTING: Data presented here were collected at cochlear implant programs affiliated with tertiary medical centers located in the United States and Canada that participated in the clinical trials. PATIENTS: Patients were postlinguistically deafened adults who received a CLARION cochlear implant. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Within-group evaluations revealed that both groups demonstrated significant improvements on all speech perception measures when 1-month postoperative scores were compared with scores obtained preoperatively with hearing aids. Between-group comparison of demographic data showed that the HiFocus group had a significantly higher mean age at implant and a significantly longer mean duration of deafness than the precurved electrode with EPS group. Statistical comparison of mean speech perception scores showed no significant difference between subjects using the precurved electrode with EPS versus the HiFocus electrode with EPS at the preoperative, 1-, and 3-month test intervals. At the 6-month test interval, the mean CNC Monosyllabic Word Test score obtained by the HiFocus with EPS group was significantly better than the mean score obtained by the group with the precurved electrode with EPS (p < 0.05).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".